No wonder it's taking so long for Barack Obama to send his budget proposal to Congress. The budget is almost two months overdue, but Republicans may find it worth the wait. The Washington Post reports that Obama will offer cuts to Social Security in exchange for tax hikes to close the deficit --- in effect, the grand bargain he and John Boehner nearly made two years ago:

President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1.

When he unveils the budget on Wednesday, Obama will break with the tradition of providing a sweeping vision of his ideal spending priorities, untethered from political realities. Instead, the document will incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last December in the discussions over the so-called fiscal cliff  which included $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases. …

While Republicans are certain to be skeptical of Obamas call for more taxes, the president also is likely to face immediate heat over his budget proposal from some Democrats and liberal supporters. Obama proposes, for instance, to change the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most beneficiaries, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise. Many Democrats say they areopposed to any Social Security cuts and are likely to be furious that such cuts are now being proposed as official administration policy.

While this is not the presidents ideal deficit reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan like the [cost-of-living] change that were key Republican requests and not the presidents preferred approach, the senior administration official said, this is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands.

Strictly from a political standpoint, the public offer is surprising, almost shocking. Without a doubt, Democrats in the 2014 cycle would have used the senior-scaring tactics of the last decade or more when it comes to Republican demands for entitlement reform and deficit control. Most of those efforts have focused on Medicare and its greater threat to the nation’s fiscal health. When Paul Ryan offered two budgets to turn Medicare into an exchange program not dissimilar to ObamaCare for the rest of the nation, Democrats ran ads that pictured a Ryan stand-in pushing Grandma over a cliff.

That strategy is useless now that Obama has essentially endorsed entitlement reform, and proposed his own Social Security cuts — and also to Medicare, as the Post notes deeper in the piece:

The budget proposal slices $200 billion from already tight defense and domestic budgets. It would cut $400 billion from Medicare and other health programs by negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy seniors to pay more, among other policies. It would also generate $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm subsidies and federal retiree programs, among other proposals.

The proposal to change the formula to calculate Social Security payments, also originally part of the offer to Boehner, would generate $130 billion in savings and $100 billion in revenue, a result of the impact of the formula change on other government programs. But it is the change in Social Security payments to most recipients that is likely to generate the greatest outcry from the Obama administrations traditional allies.

The change in Social Security actually is more modest than in Medicare. The former appears to be the adoption of chained CPI to calculate increases in payments, which will result in lower increases rather than cuts, which means that the savings are based on future projections rather than current rates of expenditures. The cuts to Medicare look like actual cuts, and perhaps even more significant, use means testing to generate revenues, a strategy that both parties have avoided in order to maintain the illusion that Medicare (and Social Security, which acts as a qualifier) aren’t welfare programs.

This proposal puts both parties on the political hook for proposing entitlement cuts and higher fees. A good entitlement reform package might be worth a trade for tax hikes, although comprehensive tax reform would be a better idea, which this proposal nibbles at but doesn’t deliver. Unfortunately, while the SSA reform on chained CPI is a good idea, the Medicare reform goes in the wrong direction — or at least in an ineffective direction. Ryan’s strategy to introduce choice in the form of public/private exchanges and most importantly a defined-contribution relationship of government to the system is the most effective way to solidify Medicare and solve the fiscal disaster than looms in the program. Perhaps this admission by Obama of the need to restrain costs in a real way will open the door to the Ryan/Wyden approach, which would be worth a tax hike to get passed.

Several programs, notably Social Security, which the White House said would be "cut" under President Obama's fiscal 2014 budget which he's finally unveiling next week would actually grow at close to the currently projected rates, according to experts.

Instead of the "cuts" heralded in headlines today, the president's budget writers are seizing on a formula that simply tweaks the rate of growth. While it could still significantly reduce the projected 10-year budget deficit, it won't cut anything from what seniors, veterans, students and others who rely on the programs get.

In fact, one Senate analysis reveals that the Obama "cut" will lower slightly the growth of Social Security benefits over the next 10 years to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent.

Ditto for reports on the "cuts" to Medicare. The plan is to reduce future payments in the program to doctors and hospitals, though wealthier recipients might see higher premiums.

Reports today said that the president plans to switch how inflation is measured to account for cost of living increase to something called a "chained Consumer Price Index," which many feel more accurately figures inflation.

The nonpartisan Moment of Truth Project headed by Democrats Erskine Bowles and Alice Rivlin and Republican Alan Simpson issued a report just last month that said the chained C.P.I. won't cut spending, but instead will limit future growth.

"Since 2000, the chained C.P.I. has, on average, been 0.25 to 0.3 percentage points lower per year than the standard C.P.I. measures. Though this difference is small on average, it compounds over time; depending on which index you use, prices have either increased by 34 percent or 29 percent (chained C.P.I.) between 2000 and 2011. Over a longer time frame, this difference would become even more pronounced," their report said.

More bluntly, their report quoted Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, who said: "This change should not be regarded as a benefit cut or a tax increase. It should be regarded more as a technical change to achieve Congress's stated goal of keeping pace with inflation in as accurate a way as possible."

Plus, Obama would include financial protections for the poor and elderly, so they would be guaranteed from seeing any decreases.

Among the program spending increased tied to the C.P.I are Social Security, Obamacare, veterans benefits, Pell Grants, and taxes such as the alternative minimum tax.

my first thoughts was how about welfare, EBT where they can use at strip club, get beer and wine, pay for their car payments etc.
how about stopping illegals getting free education, welfare, food stamps, health care etc, nah hit the old people who worked but then again the old idiots which voted for this turd pusher agenda deserve everything they get or should I say don’t get .

The north east, are you taking note, , old supposed to be Catholics voting all the time for the Dem regime

Boehner needs to respond in only a statement: How macroeconomics works—the more taken from the private sector, the smaller the private sector. The answer is no, this plan does not have the American Economy’s best interest in it. Record tax revenues are currently being collected, the spending needs to be managed. I, as Speaker of the House, will no longer join this failure.

19
posted on 04/05/2013 10:03:54 AM PDT
by Son House
(The Heath Care Recovery Never Gets Here, Like The Economic Recovery, Easily Predictable.)

HUH, not sure what on earth you’re on about but to be clear, those north east Catholic elderly vote Dem, it’s the Dem which cut half a bullion out of medicare, now Obama cuts to SS and yet they still vote for him while they ignore their faith.

The U.S. government has great power over the citizen. The most pervasive and persuasive is the power to tax. It controls much of your behavior, and takes your property. I believe confiscatory tax rates are tyranny.

Then, the federal government has a standing army which is extremely power. Both directly, and indirectly has an impact in your life. Posse Comitatus has been violated many times in our history.

Soon I will be sixty. I'm educated, experienced, well traveled and a Vet. I am a law abiding citizen...

I have been in situations were I could have been killed. I have been seriously injured...

Manc merely pointed out that members of the Catholic church are majority democrat voters, since Protestants can’t make up for both the Catholic and the atheist voters, of course republicans generally lose.

28
posted on 04/05/2013 10:41:37 AM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

my social security is not an entitlement, it is earned just like unemployment pay (when not abused for 99 weeks) because it was taken from my income without my consent. if i had a choice i would have NEVER opted for social security. cut welfare, entitlements, food stamps and other parasitic payments.

I stopped at DU after I read this today. If you want a really good laugh, go take a look at their page. The whole dam kit & caboodle is going over the edge. Lots of disparaging remarks concerning the Mark of 0 on this one and the poor Dummies lives.

“my social security is not an entitlement, it is earned just like unemployment pay”

Not true. Your SS is an entitlement because the money being provided to today’s recipient is being taken out of working people’s income.

“because it was taken from my income”

True. You did have SS funds stolen from you to give to others throughout your working career. The problem is that those at that time felt an entitlement to make a claim to your income. Now you feel entitled to make a claim to other people’s income.

It is a broken system and if any private investor did the same thing that our government is doing, then they would name them Madoff or Ponzi....

Another post that doesn’t make sense, you think the democrats are the only party that tries to win Catholic support?

The republicans try, but they cannot change their platform and drop life and marriage to do it, no one is excluding Catholics out of any “coalition”, it is the opposite, republicans for generations have been trying to figure out a way to get Catholics to switch parties.

33
posted on 04/05/2013 11:15:12 AM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

You defend Catholic voting for Obama, because the democrat party and it’s pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda is better than the pro-life, pro-marriage platform of the GOP?

The republican party always wins the Protestant vote and has elements within it that think they must move left to win the Catholic vote, your devotion to and defense of the democrat vote is just amazing.

37
posted on 04/05/2013 11:47:30 AM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

The north east is mostly made up of Catholic voters, they call themselves that and yet they vote Dem.

If these people in NJ, NY, PA, NH, MA, RI, etc all voted with their so called faith and preached what they call themselves then we would not have had the radical lunatic or many Dems in congress and we certainly would not have had the homosexual lobby going state to state pushing their agenda.

My extended family is Catholic and for generations the majority of them have voted Republican. Most of them live in the New York area. My late uncle, a Catholic, was a Republican party official on Long Island, NY many years ago.

My first cousin....she’s an elementary school teacher on Long Island, and a Catholic, told me in late October that she couldn’t wait to go the polls and vote for Romney. She said she wished she could vote for him twice. When I asked her about damage from Superstorm Sandy, she told me she would swim to the polls if she had to.

I also have relatives who have lived their entire lives in Massachusetts and they are staunch conservatives, as well as Catholic. So, there’s hope.

The Catholic vote is skewed because, unfortunately, vast numbers of Mexican and Puerto Rican Catholics vote for the dems.

41
posted on 04/05/2013 12:16:48 PM PDT
by july4thfreedomfoundation
(November 4, 2008 and November 6, 2012.....Two days that will live in infamy!)

The thing is that the Catholic vote has always been democrat, there are only about five exceptions in our history, Catholics immigrating from the most Catholic nations are not really changing anything, they are just keeping it normal.

43
posted on 04/05/2013 12:56:57 PM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

they can make up the shortfall with AARPs superb insurance programs.Actually, they're not AARP's insurance programs.AARP just supports and/or advocates for the ones that give them the biggest kickbacks.

You are saying that democrats do win because of the Catholic vote, and the reason the republicans won the popular vote in 2004 is because when Protestants can get 50 or 51% of the Catholics to vote pro-life conservative, then the democrats lose.

I think that is what the point is, the fact that the Catholic vote is what the democrats depend on and pin their hopes on, and they pray for more Catholics and atheists.

49
posted on 04/05/2013 1:39:32 PM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

The last time Republicans won is when they won the Catholic vote. Perhaps Republicans should be waking up to that fact.

Can you explain your promotion of the democrat party and their agenda? Your claim is that the democrat party is naturally the home of Catholics because the republicans have the wrong politics in comparison, that their pro-abortion democrat vote is appropriate for Catholics.

50
posted on 04/05/2013 1:44:25 PM PDT
by ansel12
(The lefts most effective quote-I'm libertarian on social issues, but conservative on economics.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.